Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Help desk
< November 7 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 9 >
Welcome to the WikiProject Articles for creation Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.


November 8

[edit]

00:46, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Airborne84

[edit]

Hello. After multiple improvements, I believe that Draft:Tactical Assault Group (game) clearly meets the requirements in WP:GNG. The last reviewer who declined the submission, reconsidered here, suggesting a resubmission. Perhaps someone here could review? Thank you. Airborne84 (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to click the "resubmit" button to place your draft back in the review queue. It will be reviewed in due course the same as any other draft. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01:18, 8 November 2023 review of submission by K-popguardian

[edit]

Glitch has recieved significantly more coverage in the wake of The Amazing Digital Circus, GlitchX, and Murder Drones. I'm doing my best to update the page right now but it doesn't look like I can submit it at the moment. Any chance someone could help resubmit this page in the future? K-popguardian (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rejection of a draft typically means that it will not be considered further. If something has fundamentally changed about the draft, such as new sources that the reviewer did not consider, the first step is to appeal to the last reviewer directly. Personally, if I were the last reviewer, I don't think the changes made warrant reconsideration. 331dot (talk) 08:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

02:38, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Snowmentil

[edit]

The Wikipedia page that I made was declined, and I don’t know why. Could someone explain? Snowmentil (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft should adhere to wikipedia's guideline to notability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability Editing and contributing (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

05:45, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Erick Wihardja

[edit]

Dear Wikipedia Contributors,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request assistance and guidance with editing and submitting a Wikipedia article.

I have been working on an article about Draft:Vasanta Group (PT. Sirius Surya Sentosa) and have reached a point where I would greatly appreciate the expertise and support of experienced editors to ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's content guidelines and quality standards.

The draft article is currently in progress and can be found at the following link: https://w.wiki/85XJ. I have made an effort to make the content as neutral, well-referenced, and informative as possible, but I understand that there might be areas that need improvement.

Here are some specific areas where I would welcome assistance: 

 1. Ensuring the article adheres to Wikipedia's content guidelines, including neutrality and verifiability.
 2. Reviewing and improving the article's structure, flow, and clarity.
 3. Adding relevant citations from reliable sources to support the information presented.
 4. Identifying and addressing any issues that may hinder the article's acceptance on Wikipedia.

I believe that with the help of experienced Wikipedia editors, we can enhance the article's quality and alignment with Wikipedia's standards. Any guidance, edits, or feedback provided would be greatly appreciated.

If you are available to assist with this project, please let me know the best way to collaborate and proceed. I am open to your recommendations and insights to make this article a valuable addition to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to the opportunity to work together and improve this article.

Sincerely, Erick Wihardja 

Erick Wihardja (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. ColinFine (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Erick Wihardja I see that you declared a COI; as I assume you are employed by this company in some capacity, the Terms of Use require you to make the stricter paid editing disclosure on your user page. Click that link for instructions.
Your draft is completely unsourced and reads as if it were on the company website. Wikipedia is not a place for a company to tell the world about itself and what it does- that's what your website is for. A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. "Significant coverage" in this context is not things like press releases, the company website, interviews with staff, brief mentions, announcements of routine business activities, and other primary sources. Significant coverage goes beyond these things and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the company, not what it sees as important about itself. Please read Your First Article. 331dot (talk)

06:27, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pretty Leaves

[edit]

my articles submission on Wikipedia is rejected. so what i have to do to accept my article? also why my article is rejected? Pretty Leaves (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Leaves, your draft is nothing like an acceptable encyclopedia article. It entirely lacks context and is completely unreferenced. It presents no evidence at all that the topic is notable. It is pretty much the opposite of an acceptable encyclopedia article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

06:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pretty Leaves

[edit]

help me to improve my articles for publishing 

Pretty Leaves (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia page already exists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Prince Editing and contributing (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:25, 8 November 2023 review of submission by BobTheRobber5

[edit]

What was the reason for it being declined? BobTheRobber5 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BobTheRobber5 I fixed your link for proper display(it lacked the "Draft:"). The reason for the decline was provided by the reviewer. You have few independent reliable sources with significant coverage of her. The award does not establish notability as the award itself does not have an article(like Academy Award or Nobel Peace Prize) or you don't have several independent sources discussing the importance of her receiving this award. The controversy described seems to have little to do with her personally and simply quotes her in her capacity as a school official. 331dot (talk) 08:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

07:34, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Aisyahaufaa

[edit]

https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Korea-Indonesia_MTCRC Hi im the employee of the company on the page i attached, currently we're trying to work on the english version of the page but the page is always on the draft section, how do i publish it so everyone knows the english version of the page? (original page is Indonesia) Aisyahaufaa (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aisyahaufaa As an employee, you are required by the Terms of Use to make a formal paid editing disclosure(click for instructions).
Please understand that what is acceptable on the Indonesian Wikipedia is not necessarily acceptable here, as the two Wikipedias are separate. Your draft would not be accepted as it is now if you were to submit it for a review. An English Wikipedia article is not a place for a company to tell about itself- it must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage choose to say about the company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To try and publish, press the button submit for review in the draft page. Reviewers will look and see if it is acceptable to be undrafted and moved to mainspace. I will press the submit button on your behalf and we shall see what can be done. Editing and contributing (talk) 13:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

08:56, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan

[edit]

hi may i know why you rejected my article Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was left by the reviewer; "This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia". Wikipedia is not a place to provide life tips or advice. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sree S.Vinod Mahadevan: please understand that Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for your essays or soapboxing. Articles need to summarise what reliable published sources have said about a subject. They also need to be encyclopaedic in tone and content, not promotional pieces or 'how-to' guides. Your current sandbox contents are again way off what is expected. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

09:19, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Ruisleipa

[edit]

Hi, I am having some trouble with this article. It has been rejected twice for the same reason despite my edits. The rejection says it is not encyclopaedic enough and should use respectable sources. But all the sources are independent and are research documents from universities and institutes, or published journalistic articles. So I don't know what the person who rejected the article really means. The sources are independent and reliable and the topic is notable by virtue of the objective coverage of it. Would anyone be able to give me some tips as to how to improve the article? Thanks in advance. Ruisleipa (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have summarized the technical information, but that doesn't establish notability. An article must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about this platform and what makes it important/significant/influential- what we call notability. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10:00, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Katrina masbin

[edit]

Dear Colleagues I am faculty member of Royan Institute and I would like to finalize the Wekipedia page of Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran.

Please do me a favor and let me know how I can submit this draft as finalized page for Royan Institute?

Sincerely, Ali

Dr. AliReza Alizadeh Moghadam Masouleh (Ph.D.) Assistant Professor of Nutritional Biology - Research Fellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, gyn-medicum Göttingen, Waldweg 5, D-37073 Göttingen, Germany AND - Department of Embryology, Reproductive Biomedicine Research Center, Royan Institute, Tehran 16635-148, Iran 



 Katrina masbin (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Katrina masbin: could you please clarify whether you are actually User:Katrina masbin, or are only using their account? Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do as a third party. Editing and contributing (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Wikiaflam

[edit]

Hello... we are looking for clarification. This page has already been previously approved and published. I submitted some simple edits and now it is rejected. Thank you for your guidance. Wikiaflam (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiaflam What makes you think the draft is "approved and published"? 331dot (talk) 11:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11:41, 8 November 2023 review of submission by WikiCreator2023

[edit]

Is it possible to get any help on what more I can add to this page before I submit it for review again. Would rather make sure it is in good stance before just submitting it. WikiCreator2023 (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really do pre-review reviews. If you feel that you have addressed the concerns of reviewers, you should resubmit. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:31, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 23.90.66.8

[edit]

Liza Soberano 23.90.66.8 (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question, but this draft (such as it is) has been rejected and will not be considered further. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have also just continued to copy-paste from other articles. Nothing about the subject and zero sources. KylieTastic (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:44, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Jpgroppi

[edit]

I do not understand why the biography of Jean-Pierre is defined as "an advertisment". I copy the style of other artists which some of them are really advertising there bravour. I tried to stay as much as neutral as possible. Jean-Pierre Groppx was a well known artist at his time and some people still remember the artist but some people start to ask today who is he. So I thought Wikipedia is there also to refer to events, people, and other thinks that need some reference and memories. In my opinion Jean-Pierre should have the right to be published as others. Please help me to modify the text as it should be less as an advertisment. Thank you for your help. Jpgroppi (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 2001:448A:5020:DBB1:5B2:65FF:74F9:F51B

[edit]

I just made a list to tidy up the article 2001:448A:5020:DBB1:5B2:65FF:74F9:F51B (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, you do not ask a question but the draft is submitted and waiting for review. S0091 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:55, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 23.90.66.8

[edit]

John Benjamin Hickey

Hickey at the 13th Annual Broadway Barks Benefit, at Shubert Alley in New York City on July 9, 2011 Born June 25, 1963 (age 60) Plano, Texas, U.S. Education Texas State University, San Marcos Fordham University (BA) Juilliard School (GrDip) Occupation Actor Years active 1990–present Partner(s) Jeffrey Richman (2003–present) John Benjamin Hickey (born June 25, 1963) is an American actor with a career in stage, film and television. He won the 2011 Tony Award for Best Performance by a Featured Actor in a Play for his performance as Felix Turner in The Normal Heart. 23.90.66.8 (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. S0091 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14:56, 8 November 2023 review of submission by FactsThatFlourish

[edit]

Hi, My initial submission was rejected on the basis that it read too much like an advertisement. Before I proceed to edit my draft, I'd like to enquire in what way exactly? Is it down the content of the article, for instance, or the list of (co-)authored publications? Also, although I referenced a blog article, the blog is written by a reliable art historian and former university lecturer who is independent of the subject. Any help and thoughts on this is much appreciated. Many thanks! FactsThatFlourish (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FactsThatFlourish, your draft has not been rejected. Rather, it has been declined, which is an important distinction. You are welcome to keep working on it. In my opinion, your draft over-relies on works by Katalin Herzog. Also, the sections "Exhibitions (selection)" and "Work in museum collections (selection)" are entirely unreferenced. Those sections either need references or they should be removed. Unreferenced statements like Space and movement are very important for Ton Mars, and this is evident in his works in various ways. Although most of his works look like two-dimensional paintings, they have sloping sides that narrow towards the back and rest against the wall. A viewer walking past can experience these works as sculptures, neatly embedded in the architecture of the exhibition space. come off as promotional and original research, which is not permitted. Wikipedia editors summarize what art critics say. We do not function as art critics ourselves. Cullen328 (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15:43, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Flint314

[edit]

I have tried to attach news and studies and reports to the page. But it is very hard to have lot of citations for something that is pretty new technology, and not so widely known. So how can I get it out there? Flint314 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't, it has been rejected Wikipedia is only interested in things that are already out there ie notable. Theroadislong (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Article Was Drafted for no sources

[edit]

Hello, my article Draft:Jasper AI was drafted for having no sources, but I have clearly cited everything, and they mentioned its written in a promotional tone, even though I included negative elements about the company. Is there any immediate reason why this article was drafted? I have no affiliation with the company Comintell (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just moved to article space. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I will take a look. Comintell (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who moved it and think it was script error for saying "no references." It was moved due to tone and sourcing. I see it was moved back to the mainspace so I will take a closer look now. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16:54:26, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Comintell

[edit]

16:54:26, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Comintell


Hello, my article Draft:Jasper AI was drafted for having no sources, but I have clearly cited everything, and they mentioned its written in a promotional tone, even though I included negative elements about the company. Is there any immediate reason why this article was drafted? I have no affiliation with the company Comintell (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

17:08, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Woodrusher

[edit]

Hello, this is quite a legitimate entry as I was surprised Caples had no Wikipedia on him, as he is legendary in railroading and the chief engineer for the Clinchfield, in whose Wikipedia entry he is even mentioned. I have also included links to reputable sources in the community. As I am not artful in the processes and determinations of Wikipedia, I politely request guidance so I can make this entry acceptable. All I received was a summary and immediate decline, which is quite discouraging. Anyone knowledgable about railroad engineering and the rather astonishing accomplishment of Clinchfield Railroad, the last major railroad built in the United States and arguably the best engineered, is quite aware of MJ Caples. This is not a fluky Wikipedia entry application.

I also made a typo mistake in the header by putting a comma accidentally where a period should be in the abbreviation, but do not know how to change that.

Assistance on this entry is most appreciated and I believe this is a useful contribution for Wikipedia, Woodrusher (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodrusher Tighten your writing and set being discouraged aside. Being pedantic, if he is legendary then he is fiction. This is part of tightening your writing. Avoid praise words. Commit to dull-but-worthy flat toned prose.
Your only objective is to prove he passes WP:BIO. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:39, 8 November 2023 review of submission by TakeDealyo

[edit]

The reviewer has declined the draft because subject does not have significant media coverage. There were 13 citations on the subject but the reviewer says that they were just passing mentions. . Secondly, subject is an engineer, and they will not get the kind of media coverage that politicians and other celebrities get. Please suggest how to overcome this objection. Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there are not appropriate sources to summarize, there is nothing you can do. It is true that Wikipedia's requirement to have independent reliable sources for a topic means that some areas are underserved, but this is necessary for verification purposes. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you response. If purpose of notable sources are for verification purposes then some of the citations are from the US Patent Office (USPTO), LinkedIn where someone has posted the review of the book authored by the subject and published by Elsevier (one of the world's largest publisher of STEM books) etc. How to provide more reliable sources? Please help. Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your association with Mr. Kangovi? (I see you took a picture of him)
I confused you with regards to verification- verification is not the only requirement or need for a source. Sources must contain significant coverage of the subject, coverage that goes beyond merely documenting what they have done and goes into detail about what the source sees as important/significant/influential about the subject- what we call notability. I get that you see him as important, but what matters is if others see him that way.
Patent office documents are primary sources (as they only document he holds a patent) and do not establish notability. If an independent source writes about the significance of the invention that he holds a patent for, that would be what we are looking for. If as you say, they don't have the coverage needed, Mr. Kangovi would not merit a Wikipedia article. You may want to consider alternative outlets with less stringent requirements to tell the world about Mr. Kangovi. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. TakeDealyo (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

18:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Center&main

[edit]

Seeking assistance with this draft. I have provided multiple reliable business sources citing Mahesh's role as CEO of Cleo and his notable background in the technology sector. Center&main (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Center&main You have already declared you are paid by Cleo to write this. Please use that payment to learn how to write and cite drafts that will be accepted.
I will give you a clue.
For a living person we have a high standard of referencing. Every substantive fact you assert, especially one that is susceptible to potential challenge, requires a citation with a reference that is about them, and is independent of them, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS, and is significant coverage. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact cited, that meet these tough criteria is likely to make this draft a clear acceptance (0.9 probability). Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the person is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
The draft has been rejected. You may appeal tothe rejecting reviewer if you feel it appropriate. It is unlikely to be reviewed further without their release. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 8 November 2023 review of submission by 178.204.251.51

[edit]

What should be added to this article to make it more complete? 178.204.251.51 (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the comments on the draft page, multiple reviewers have noted that they don't understand what the article is about. I for one have no idea what an "otok" is. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking how to make the article clearer. On "otok" I made a link to the Chinese Wikipedia 178.204.251.51 (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but I don't know Chinese so I still don't know what an otok is unfortunately. Perhaps the otok article should be translated to the English Wikipedia. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:19, 8 November 2023 review of submission by FutsalFan97

[edit]

I don't understand why this draft has been rejected twice if you compare my draft with articles like Tennis at the 2023 Pan American Games – Men's singles and Tennis at the 2019 Pan American Games – Men's doubles my draft is pretty much equal and has even more references. Why does it keep being rejected? FutsalFan97 (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FutsalFan97 The draft has been declined, not "rejected". The terms have specific meanings here- "rejected" would mean a draft may not be resubmitted- declined means it may be resubmitted.
You do not have independent reliable sources that discuss this event in depth- you've just posted the results. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't have independent reliable sources, then why articles like the ones I mentioned who also don't have independent reliable sources are approved? FutsalFan97 (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That another article exists does not necessarily mean that it was "approved" by anyone. There are numerous ways that inappropriate articles can get past us, this cannot justify more inappropriate articles being added. The men's doubles article has the same problem as your draft. There needs to be some sort of source besides the results. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:30, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Visortelle

[edit]

Need help with an article about Apache Pulsar @331dot written: > To pass the submission process, the draft needs to be much less about the technical information and features, and needs to discuss what independent sources say is important about this platform. That's my opinion, feel free to ask others at the AFC Help

I looked a lot. Spent the whole day on it.

Eventually, I asked the Pulsar community for help in finding good references. Hoping for any good recommendations. https://lists.apache.org/thread/vh8v8wch5drt7w6d4sozstpvhdcqn6gx

I don't see any independent, in-depth, and reliable at the same time sources here. Most of the in-depth sources are from the project documentation, StreamNative blog, or DataStax blog.

There are some articles by some bloggers on Medium and similar resources, but I can't they are "reliable".

Half a year ago I made a list of articles about Pulsar: https://github.com/tealtools/awesome-apache-pulsar#articles

Maybe something from this list is suitable?

There are two books on Apache Pulsar. One of the books is written by StreamNative employee, so its not "independent". Unlikely I can cite the second book several times in the article.

What is the concrete threshold of refs per section/per paragraph/per sentence or any other clear metric to article be considered valid for publishing?

I see the same similar situation in the list of Apache_Kafka and RabbitMQ references list. At least half of the references are from "dependent" sources. 


Visortelle (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Visortelle I fixed your post for proper display of a link to your draft(you had what I think you intended as a section title where the draft title should have been) 331dot (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle You asked about thresholds. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, in multiple secondary sources which are WP:RS please. See WP:42. Please also see WP:PRIMARY which details the limited permitted usage of primary sources and WP:SELFPUB which has clear limitations on self published sources. Providing sufficient references, ideally one per fact referred to, that meet these tough criteria is likely to allow this article to remain. Lack of them or an inability to find them is likely to mean that the topic is not suitable for inclusion, certainly today.
That is what we need. How many? That depends upon how many facts you state that are susceptible to challenge (as opposed to simple facts, like "Chalk is white")
I suspect you have answered your own question. No (useful) references = no article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't spend a lot of time on attempts and combinatorics. Can we go this way?:
I'll provide multiple sources for each fact. Each of them separately most likely won't be "independent", "secondary" and "in-depth", but in combination, these requirements will be completed.
They will complement each other and not contradict each other. You'll be able to remove some of them. Visortelle (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle No. Spend the time or don't spend it. Multiple references for a fact is WP:CITEKILL, and will lead to a decline, perhaps rejection. If you want the draft to be an article, please see WP:BURDEN. Wikipedia woudl like articles. but does not need them 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle Seems it was rejected. Shame. Never mind. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:11, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's now how citations work here- putting multiple citations and saying they only work together would be original research. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just offer a choice for the reviewer. Feel free to leave refs you think is suitable and remove what you think isn't suitable.
The review process seems a subjective assessment. Is there any automated ref quality checker or something like that?
For now, it looks to me that reviewers even don't read the content of refs and just reject it for fun. Visortelle (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I provided:
Refs to two books from O'Reilly Media - the very reputable publisher.
Refs to articles on independent blogs.
Refs to an article in pdf by Intel.
What's wrong here? Visortelle (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ 331dot Keeping the discussion in the existing section.
Is the article at inforworld.com a good article? Visortelle (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not good for establishing notability. It's a comparison between two products and describes their features, it does not provide coverage indicating what makes it notable.. Blogs(which you refer to) are not generally considered reliable sources as they usually lack editorial control and fact checking. 331dot (talk) 14:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about books? Visortelle (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most books are fine as sources(unless they are self-published). I haven't read the books you refer to so I can't comment beyond that. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with the references in this article?

I'm looking on another Wikipedia articles on related technologies an quality of references isn't better in any way.

Maybe this is a suitable source to refer to? https://www.infoworld.com/article/3379120/apache-kafka-vs-apache-pulsar-how-to-choose.html Visortelle (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Visortelle Please keep the discussion to this existing section. 331dot (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, comparisons to other articles are not usually useful, see WP:OSE- unless those articles are classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Visortelle:, let's review the sources listed to see if there is enough independent, significant coverage:

1. Not independent or significant coverage.

2. Not independent. "At the time we started"

3. Not independent or significant coverage.

4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. Those sources are okay but they are kind of just random websites. There isn't really any broader newspaper or magazine coverage of this.

6 and 17. I'm not sure specialist how-to books count towards significant coverage.

7. I doubt Powerpoints count towards significant coverage.

8. Interview, not really fully independent.

12. Interview, not fully independent.

13. Company website, not independent.

15. I'm not sure that pdf essay counts towards significant coverage.

Honestly, this is borderline but I'm not sure if it's enough to support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "this is borderline". If from start the moderators' feedback would contain at least a short per/source review as you provided, it would be smoother and much faster. Visortelle (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the more specific answer.
1. It's not a source, but rather a metadata. It has been added using Wikidata which has a special field for articles about software projects whose source is publicly available. How can it be viewed as a source? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1324
3. Same - metadata about this kind of projects.
4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. - should I keep them?
6 and 17 (books) - they cover the subject quite well. The documentation on the official site of course is more up-to-date, but both books have a good introduction into the problems that Pulsar intended to solve, it's history, it's architecture.
The publisher is O'Reilly Media. It's a reputable publisher with editor team.
Rest points: Apache Pulsar isn't a scientific research project. It doesn't imply writing scientific papers, same as many other software projects which have articles on the Wikipedia.
Also its unlikely New York Times, Washington Post, or any other magazine will publish anything about it.

Both books contain all the little amount of information mentioned in this article. Visortelle (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying you should remove those sources. I was just evaluating them on whether they contributed towards notability. You can still use sources that don't count towards notability as references for other facts. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whats next?
Do books count?
Should I remove some sources? Something else?
Regarding the notability - amount of stars on GitHub is a good metric for open-source projects popularity.
Only Apache Kafka from this list is more popular than Pulsar.

Most of top-level (not incubating) Apache Foundation projects are notable enough for people interested in this area. https://projects.apache.org/projects.html?number Many Apache projects with less number of committers and PMC members have an article on Wikipedia: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Cassandra - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_RocketMQ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_CouchDB - ... many others.

Pulsar has a Slack community with more than 10,000 users - also more that many projects of this kind that have an article on Wikipedia. This kind of software is used in many enterprise companies. Pulsar isn't something that has been released this month, it's a mature project with hundreds of contributors: https://pulsar.apache.org/blog/2023/02/03/apache-pulsar-hits-its-600th-contributor/#:~:text=The%20Apache%20Pulsar%20community%20embraced,contributed%20to%20this%20remarkable%20achievement. If I'll add refs to the community size statistics, Apache PMC members count, would it contribute to notability? Maybe some ref to a good article with the explanation of why this kind of software is important for the industry? Actually, the only direct competitor with similar amount of features here is Apache Kafka.

If anyone from moderators would provide a good reference article on a same kind of software (message brokers) with good sources list, I would be very grateful.
@331dot WDYT? Visortelle (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cc @Timtrent @WikiOriginal-9 Visortelle (talk) 07:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I believe I've said previously, it is usually not a good idea to cite other articles in comparison to yours, as they could have problems that you are unaware of. In this case, the ones you are citing indeed have the same problems as your draft. If you want to use other articles as a model, use those classified as good articles. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why your OSE argument is valid. I would understand it if there would be one, two, three articles on similar topics. But there are tens of such articles on very similar subjects. I can't find any good article. Can you?
Its completely unfair in relation to the project. People who unlikely can understand and evaluate any info written in the sources, trying to make some conclusions.
I scanned the "good articles" list yesterday and didn't find anything similar to the kind of software I'm talking about.
I looked for an open-source project that is:
  • Relatively new - not 30 years old something used by everyone, or something that is already dead and notable only as a historical fact.
  • Not something super-popular that runs on a lot of consumer-market devices, but rather a project used by professional engineers, that "normal people" wouldn't talk about.
By the way, Wikipedia itself uses this kind of software (Kafka): https://grafana.wikimedia.org/d/O_OXJyTVk/home-w-wiki-status?orgId=1&refresh=30s&search=open&tag=kafka
I removed most of the content of the original article, including what has been evaluated as promotional in first edits.
Now the draft contain only very short list of facts.
I suppose, the article content can be added by others Pulsar community members over time.
All these facts are mentioned in the referenced books by very reputable publisher.
Isn't it's enough?
Maybe Wikipedia or any of it's moderators personally interested in not adding this specific project? I can't find any other explanation. Visortelle (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You answered only about my referencing to other projects but didn't answer anything about the book's reliability.
Also didn't answer anything about the Pulsar notability. Visortelle (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe those tens of articles should not exist. I don't know, I haven't examined every one or its sources. It's possible that this class of software does not merit Wikipedia articles because it lacks the appropriate sources. It is true that sourcing and verification requirements mean that some topic areas are underserved, but these policies are necessary. Articles do not just summarize facts- they should summarize what is said about a topic and what makes it notable. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be that the class of software as a whole might merit an article, but not individual software programs. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do these articles contributes to notability:
Visortelle (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean - instead of writing an article for each program, write a single article on all the programs?
There are such articles that explain the problem that this class of programs solves: Message broker, Message queue
I don't think so. Each of them They are very different.
It's like saying that there shouldn't be article about each kind of animal - lion, zebra, cat, etc., but rather a single article about all the animals on the planet. Visortelle (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I see is that people who aren't interested in the subject, are trying to evaluate the subject's notability.
For example, I absolutely don't find notable each NFL player who has lived on a planet or Maine elections (per year!!!). But it may be important to someone, and that's OK. Visortelle (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That analogy about animals is not quite the same thing. My present circumstances don't permit me to examine the articles you've provided; perhaps someone else will sooner than I can. If you feel articles about Maine elections are not in keeping with policies, you can address that. Because Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources, personal interest in a topic is not required to contribute about it. In fact, it can be a negative, if the editor is too personally invested in the subject to see how policies are applied. Not saying you are, just speaking generally. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why anyone not interested in facts about Maine (probably by living there) could decide to write so many articles about this area?
Also, I don't see how anyone not interested in using Pulsar, Kafka, any programming language, would write an article about it.
Same for any other topic, that you can't read about in the morning newspaper, see on TV news, or some YouTube channel like "a fact of the day". Visortelle (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> perhaps someone else will sooner than I can
Is there any way to initiate this process without creating one more article draft or a thread on the Help Desk? Visortelle (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> If you feel articles about Maine elections are not in keeping with policies, you can address that.
I don't feel that because Maine isn't my area of interest and I don't know anything about it.
If I saw some wrong or controversial fact in an article on topic I know well enough, I would probably raise a ticket/issue, or how it properly called here, on Wikipedia. Visortelle (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens, what a lot of messages. @Visortelle, why not put this energy into editing Wikipedia? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah. Yep, it took much longer than I initially thought. And probably it's not the end. If I have decided to do something, I gonna try until I'll have some results.
Editing Wikipedia itself isn't my area of interest yet. I see it's requires quite a lot of patience to resolve disputes.
Same question - why put so much energy into rejecting the article?
Let's better try to find a way to improve it and make it suitable to be published.
The amount and quality of sources on Pulsar isn't less that on other similar projects.
Maybe I'm presenting them differently somehow. ask, I'll explain everything if something isn't clear. Visortelle (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after I already have some experience with Wiki syntax, and more-less understand what's needed in the sense of sources, etc., probably I'll start to make some edits. It's easier to do something when you pass the initial entry barrier/threshold on something unfamiliar before.
Depends on the final experience of the current topic. Visortelle (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle I remind you that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I wonder if anyome has mentioned WP:BURDEN to you so far. We woudl like any article om a topic that is proven to be notable. The burden of proof is the creating editor's.
We care passionately about WP:N andWP:V. Individual articles. not so much.
The rest of this is tl;dr 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:09, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read it.
I tired of rejections with no any feedback. The only more-less constructive feedback I got was from @WikiOriginal-9, who provided per/source explanation of why it's good or bad. It was after the article rejection by another user.
That's why I'm asking, do these articles are good for notability or not:
Also I still didn't get the answer from anyone - are two books that I referenced to are good sources? These two books (even any of them) have enough information to cover all the fact in the article. Visortelle (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle With respect, this is a simple Helpdesk. Your detailed questions may be answered by using the references you have found. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any place on Wikipedia for discussion a specific draft before submitting it (and potentially getting a rejection)? Visortelle (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visortelle This is, with precision, the role of the Draft name space and the Articles for Creation process.
Having something rejected is juts that, rejection. Having something defined means you get to work on it iteratively. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20:52, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Pangiotis A.

[edit]

Hello,

What other correction should I take?

My last revision wasn't clear about what was wrong.

Thank you, Pangiotis A. (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pangiotis A. the draft is rejected meaning it will not longer be considered. Given much of it is unsourced, it appears to be original research and it certainly is promotional. S0091 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:06, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Horophile

[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if I can get assistance for how to improve my submission? I am including multiple independence sources but still getting declined? Horophile (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Horophile. No, your sources are not independent. A large majority of them are affiliated with Harvard. Those Harvard sources are of no use in establishing notability. What is required are sources that are entirely independent of Harvard. Cullen328 (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

21:28, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Օֆելյա Հակոբյան

[edit]

I have made updates, please help me to know if my article now is in a better situation. Thank you in advance. Օֆելյա Հակոբյան (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Օֆելյա Հակոբյան The way to discover this is to submit it for review 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:08, 8 November 2023 review of submission by Morekar

[edit]

Their is problem in references but I don't ideo about that. Morekar (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Morekar obviously the technical reference problem is fixed. I make no comment about the draft itself. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent, Whenever I starting to edit in desktop mode appeared a note in reflist is – "This reference is defined in a template or other generated block, and for now can only be previewed in source mode".
@Morekar I do not see that I am afraid. If t persists I suggest WP:HELPDESK for that question 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

23:13, 8 November 2023 review of submission by MicroSupporter

[edit]

I am struggling to make it different to the previously deleted version on Verdis because I originally made it similar to Liberland another micronation nearby. I added more notable and recent references and information about their 'president' being detained. What can I do? MicroSupporter (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicroSupporter: Could you please list all of the new references? Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I believe I added the following:
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/melbourne-teenager-becomes-europes-newest-president,18022 (I saw you wrote it isn't independent but I do not understand why.)
https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/travel/southall-teenager-sets-up-new-26385041
https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/20-wild-attempts-to-create-crypto-micronations-or-communities/
https://birdinflight.com/svit/verdis.html (in Ukrainian)
https://metro.co.uk/2023/04/30/verdis-the-sovereign-state-on-croatia-and-serbias-disputed-border-18689539/
https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Danube-le-fleuve-ou-peuvent-naitre-des-utopies-1-3-Bienvenue-en-Syldavie-si-ce-n-est-en-Bordurie (in French)
https://issuu.com/starnewsgroup/docs/2023-07-18_rt_633/1 (some local paper I think)
https://explorersweb.com/terra-nullius-unclaimed-lands/ (I dont think I added this one. I am not sure) MicroSupporter (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this older article. The other b92 reference appears to be reposted from Sputnik. This one is independently written. https://www.b92.net/zivot/vesti.php?yyyy=2021&mm=09&dd=20&nav_id=1925054 MicroSupporter (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123 sorry I forgot to tag MicroSupporter (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, gimme a sec to review the links. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MicroSupporter:
Independent Australia: Author writes in first person. Ex. "I", "We"
MyLondon: Maybe, but seems more like an interview converted to article form.
Birdinflight: Seems ok, actually
Metro: Maybe
Issuu: Not really about Verdis, more about aid.
Explorersweb: Passing mention
b92: Maybe, but the coverage is mostly superficial (basic facts).
Also, per the MyLondon source, they have recognition from 1 country (Kingdom of Eswatini), though WP:NCOUNTRY isn't a thing so I'm not sure if this contributes much. In any case, I think this is pretty borderline so a second opinion would be appreciated. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 23:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. The Independent Australia article I think the journalist joined the ‘President’ to report on his trip. I would also like to advise looking at the previous references on the page like Većernji List, Total Croatia News, Pagina/12 and LaNacion. I think they are independent.
https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/osnovali-drzavu-na-nasem-spornom-teritoriju-cilj-nam-je-pomirenje-naroda-1524432
https://www.pagina12.com.ar/371297-verdis-la-eco-republica-libre-que-preside-un-pibe-de-17-anos
https://www.lanacion.com.ar/revista-brando/la-republica-libre-de-verdis-el-pais-sustentable-que-fundo-un-joven-de-17-anos-en-una-franja-entre-nid03112021/
https://total-croatia-news.com/news/politics/verdis-republic/
are they ok? MicroSupporter (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123sorry I forgot to tag again. MicroSupporter (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MicroSupporter: Hi, sorry for the late response. One of the sources is an interview, and the others seem ok, but, as previously mentioned, I would like a second opinion. Feel free to resubmit, linking to this thread if necessary. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 01:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, there is too much citation of primary and questionable sourcing in the draft. And as with other 'micronation' articles, this article abuses the infobox to misrepresent the self-promotional claims of individuals of unrecognised zero-population states as having recognised heads of state etc - e.g. naming a supposed 'President' and 'Vice president'. Whether this counts as fiction, fancruft, or an outright hoax, I'm unsure, but in my opinion Wikipedia should not be presenting such fantasies as facts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued with you before. Respectfully, I think you have too much bias against micronations. You are basically saying they should all be deleted in that sense. Also what sourcing is primary except their website? MicroSupporter (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bias against misrepresenting fantasy as fact. As does Wikipedia. If people who write articles promoting the fantasies of imaginary country-builders as fact have an issue with that, it isn't my problem. Daniel Jackson is no more the 'President of Verdis' than Joshua Norton was Emperor of the United States. Compare the infoboxes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a misrepresentation. It says Micronation on the info box. If you feel this way maybe set up an AfD on every micronation. List of micronations MicroSupporter (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's exactly the BS the fantasy-country fanclub have been pushing on Wikipedia for years. Find some dubious local paper or the like that describes Imaginistan as a 'micronation' and then spam the article with a whole lot of nonsense about governments, constitutions, currencies etc, etc, etc that exists absolutely nowhere but on some website with delusions of grandeur. This is an abuse of infoboxes, and an abuse of Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123: Metro isn't an RS (rsp); it's a tabloid owned by the Daily Mail, although it's not deprecated as the Mail is. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2023_November_8&oldid=1185025037"